In addition to the two actually dropped in Japan, the US and Russia have been close to accidentally firing nuclear weapons since then, in each case because they thought they were getting ready to respond to what they thought was an aggressive act. It's just not a good idea to have nuclear weapons at all.<p>So, instead of "no first use", I would just have a global agreement never to have or use nuclear weapons for any reason, not even for defense.<p>Nuclear pulse propulsion should be allowed for spacecraft, however. This was outlawed years ago by the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_Nuclear_Test_Ban_Treaty" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_Nuclear_Test_Ban_Treat...</a> but would be much more efficient than other currently used methods and safe if used with clean bombs in space. See: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion</a><p>Weapons by their nature will continue to escalate as long as technology improves, so if nuclear weapons continue to be allowed, time will surely bring a weapon even more destructive to counter them. Whether you believe they've brought peace or not, do you want someone to invent an even greater weapon and test it as the next "weapon of peace"? I don't.
"No first use" invites attack by anyone who has a stronger conventional military. This is one of those cases where ambiguity is the right course of action - if you say "all our options are on the table, and we'll decide on a case-by-case basis" potential adversaries have to consider the possibility they'll lose even if they win. They're likely to be more circumspect.
How about a more general no first strike policy? If you are willing to pre-strike a country, logically they should be willing to pre-pre-strike you. A no first strike policy allows for us to reach a Nash equilibrium.
Somewhat related, I've never believed the conventional doctrine of mutual assured destruction.<p>The way I see it, the only rational thing to do once you have been hit hard by nuclear weapons is to forget your original plan of retaliation and to surrender immediately. Retaliating would only kill more people and potentially render the planet uninhabitable, but would give you no gain.<p>MAD only works if you tie your own hands. If you make the retaliation absolutely automatic and unstoppable. As far as I know, the only such system that was built was the Soviet "Perimetr" or "Dead Hand" system, which was never completely activated. As long as there is a human component, you will be able to, and rationally have to, turn around once you have taken the hit.<p>I think the naive story about MAD comes from applying game theory but assuming your strategy is static throughout the whole "game".<p>Likewise, the main reason we (US, NATO) have not used another nuclear bomb is that we have not been in a "real" war against an opponent where it would make sense. I mean for example an all out land war against Russia on Russian or European territory and/or where US territory is under danger. Where it would make sense to use a nuclear bomb to quickly destroy a huge tank unit or weapons factories, or to bomb the enemy into submission (if you have given up on sparing civilian lives). Once we would be stuck in such a horrible war, a "no first use" doctrine like any peacetime strategy would be up for discussion immediately, IMO.
The principle is beyond the Nuclear policy. It's a famous winning strategy in game theory called "tit for tat" which can be considered as the foundation of all moral principles of human society.
> Firstly, it is important to recall that in the entire span since the United States acquired nuclear weapons it has not seen fit to use them.<p>Uhhh, did the author forget about 1945?
There's a new argument for enacting this as legislation, and requiring the permission of Congress for first use of nuclear weapons. Trump might be elected.
I imagine it could be a tactic to launch a single ICBM from a submarine at yourself to give cause to launch a nuclear offense. In reality it doesn't matter who shoots first against a determined enemy who is willing to execute a false flag.